Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are based on national threshold values, regardless of selected geography; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% national income threshold. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

Families of tax filers; Single-earner and dual-earner census families by number of children (final T1 Family File; T1FF).

U.S. citizens with a professional degree had the highest median household income in 2023, at 172,100 U.S. dollars. In comparison, those with less than a 9th grade education made significantly less money, at 35,690 U.S. dollars. Household income The median household income in the United States has fluctuated since 1990, but rose to around 70,000 U.S. dollars in 2021. Maryland had the highest median household income in the United States in 2021. Maryland’s high levels of wealth is due to several reasons, and includes the state's proximity to the nation's capital. Household income and ethnicity The median income of white non-Hispanic households in the United States had been on the rise since 1990, but declining since 2019. While income has also been on the rise, the median income of Hispanic households was much lower than those of white, non-Hispanic private households. However, the median income of Black households is even lower than Hispanic households. Income inequality is a problem without an easy solution in the United States, especially since ethnicity is a contributing factor. Systemic racism contributes to the non-White population suffering from income inequality, which causes the opportunity for growth to stagnate.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Jobs by Wage Level (EQ1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Distribution of jobs by low-, middle-, and high-wage occupations

LAST UPDATED January 2019

DESCRIPTION Jobs by wage level refers to the distribution of jobs by low-, middle- and high-wage occupations. In the San Francisco Bay Area, low-wage occupations have a median hourly wage of less than 80% of the regional median wage; median wages for middle-wage occupations range from 80% to 120% of the regional median wage, and high-wage occupations have a median hourly wage above 120% of the regional median wage.

DATA SOURCE California Employment Development Department OES (2001-2017) http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/oes-employment-and-wages.html

American Community Survey (2001-2017) http://api.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Jobs are determined to be low-, middle-, or high-wage based on the median hourly wage of their occupational classification in the most recent year. Low-wage jobs are those that pay below 80% of the regional median wage. Middle-wage jobs are those that pay between 80% and 120% of the regional median wage. High-wage jobs are those that pay above 120% of the regional median wage. Regional median hourly wages are estimated from the American Community Survey and are published on the Vital Signs Income indicator page. For the national context analysis, occupation wage classifications are unique to each metro area. A low-wage job in New York, for instance, may be a middle-wage job in Miami. For the Bay Area in 2017, the median hourly wage for low-wage occupations was less than $20.86 per hour. For middle-wage jobs, the median ranged from $20.86 to $31.30 per hour; and for high-wage jobs, the median wage was above $31.30 per hour.

Occupational employment and wage information comes from the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program. Regional and subregional data is published by the California Employment Development Department. Metro data is published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The OES program collects data on wage and salary workers in nonfarm establishments to produce employment and wage estimates for some 800 occupations. Data from non-incorporated self-employed persons are not collected, and are not included in these estimates. Wage estimates represent a three-year rolling average.

Due to changes in reporting during the analysis period, subregion data from the EDD OES have been aggregated to produce geographies that can be compared over time. West Bay is San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin counties. North Bay is Sonoma, Solano and Napa counties. East Bay is Alameda and Contra Costa counties. South Bay is Santa Clara County from 2001-2004 and Santa Clara and San Benito counties from 2005-2017.

Due to changes in occupation classifications during the analysis period, all occupations have been reassigned to 2010 SOC codes. For pre-2009 reporting years, all employment in occupations that were split into two or more 2010 SOC occupations are assigned to the first 2010 SOC occupation listed in the crosswalk table provided by the Census Bureau. This method assumes these occupations always fall in the same wage category, and sensitivity analysis of this reassignment method shows this is true in most cases.

In order to use OES data for time series analysis, several steps were taken to handle missing wage or employment data. For some occupations, such as airline pilots and flight attendants, no wage information was provided and these were removed from the analysis. Other occupations did not record a median hourly wage (mostly due to irregular work hours) but did record an annual average wage. Nearly all these occupations were in education (i.e. teachers). In this case, a 2080 hour-work year was assumed and [annual average wage/2080] was used as a proxy for median income. Most of these occupations were classified as high-wage, thus dispelling concern of underestimating a median wage for a teaching occupation that requires less than 2080 hours of work a year (equivalent to 12 months fulltime). Finally, the OES has missing employment data for occupations across the time series. To make the employment data comparable between years, gaps in employment data for occupations are ‘filled-in’ using linear interpolation if there are at least two years of employment data found in OES. Occupations with less than two years of employment data were dropped from the analysis. Over 80% of interpolated cells represent missing employment data for just one year in the time series. While this interpolating technique may impact year-over-year comparisons, the long-term trends represented in the analysis generally are accurate.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

A Gold Standard Corpus for Activity Information

Dataset Title: A Gold Standard Corpus for Activity Information (GoSCAI)

Dataset Curators: The Epidemiology & Biostatistics Section of the NIH Clinical Center Rehabilitation Medicine Department

Dataset Version: 1.0 (May 16, 2025)

Dataset Citation and DOI: NIH CC RMD Epidemiology & Biostatistics Section. (2025). A Gold Standard Corpus for Activity Information (GoSCAI) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15528545

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This data statement is for a gold standard corpus of de-identified clinical notes that have been annotated for human functioning information based on the framework of the WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The corpus includes 484 notes from a single institution within the United States written in English in a clinical setting. This dataset was curated for the purpose of training natural language processing models to automatically identify, extract, and classify information on human functioning at the whole-person, or activity, level.

CURATION RATIONALE

This dataset is curated to be a publicly available resource for the development and evaluation of methods for the automatic extraction and classification of activity-level functioning information as defined in the ICF. The goals of data curation are to 1) create a corpus of a size that can be manually deidentified and annotated, 2) maximize the density and diversity of functioning information of interest, and 3) allow public dissemination of the data.

LANGUAGE VARIETIES

Language Region: en-US

Prose Description: English as written by native and bilingual English speakers in a clinical setting

LANGUAGE USER DEMOGRAPHIC

The language users represented in this dataset are medical and clinical professionals who work in a research hospital setting. These individuals hold professional degrees corresponding to their respective specialties. Specific demographic characteristics of the language users such as age, gender, or race/ethnicity were not collected.

ANNOTATOR DEMOGRAPHIC

The annotator group consisted of five people, 33 to 76 years old, including four females and one male. Socioeconomically, they came from the middle and upper-middle income classes. Regarding first language, three annotators had English as their first language, one had Chinese, and one had Spanish. Proficiency in English, the language of the data being annotated, was native for three of the annotators and bilingual for the other two. The annotation team included clinical rehabilitation domain experts with backgrounds in occupational therapy, physical therapy, and individuals with public health and data science expertise. Prior to annotation, all annotators were trained on the specific annotation process using established guidelines for the given domain, and annotators were required to achieve a specified proficiency level prior to annotating notes in this corpus.

LINGUISTIC SITUATION AND TEXT CHARACTERISTICS

The notes in the dataset were written as part of clinical care within a U.S. research hospital between May 2008 and November 2019. These notes were written by health professionals asynchronously following the patient encounter to document the interaction and support continuity of care. The intended audience of these notes were clinicians involved in the patients' care. The included notes come from nine disciplines - neuropsychology, occupational therapy, physical medicine (physiatry), physical therapy, psychiatry, recreational therapy, social work, speech language pathology, and vocational rehabilitation. The notes were curated to support research on natural language processing for functioning information between 2018 and 2024.

PREPROCESSING AND DATA FORMATTING

The final corpus was derived from a set of clinical notes extracted from the hospital electronic medical record (EMR) for the purpose of clinical research. The original data include character-based digital content originally. We work in ASCII 8 or UNICODE encoding, and therefore part of our pre-processing includes running encoding detection and transformation from encodings such as Windows-1252 or ISO-8859 format to our preferred format.

On the larger corpus, we applied sampling to match our curation rationale. Given the resource constraints of manual annotation, we set out to create a dataset of 500 clinical notes, which would exclude notes over 10,000 characters in length.

To promote density and diversity, we used five note characteristics as sampling criteria. We used the text length as expressed in number of characters. Next, we considered the discipline group as derived from note type metadata and describes which discipline a note originated from: occupational and vocational therapy (OT/VOC), physical therapy (PT), recreation therapy (RT), speech and language pathology (SLP), social work (SW), or miscellaneous (MISC, including psychiatry, neurology and physiatry). These disciplines were selected for collecting the larger corpus because their notes are likely to include functioning information. Existing information extraction tools were used to obtain annotation counts in four areas of functioning and provided a note’s annotation count, annotation density (annotation count divided by text length), and domain count (number of domains with at least 1 annotation).

We used stratified sampling across the 6 discipline groups to ensure discipline diversity in the corpus. Because of low availability, 50 notes were sampled from SLP with relaxed criteria, and 90 notes each from the 5 other discipline groups with stricter criteria. Sampled SLP notes were those with the highest annotation density that had an annotation count of at least 5 and a domain count of at least 2. Other notes were sampled by highest annotation count and lowest text length, with a minimum annotation count of 15 and minimum domain count of 3.

The notes in the resulting sample included certain types of PHI and PII. To prepare for public dissemination, all sensitive or potentially identifying information was manually annotated in the notes and replaced with substituted content to ensure readability and enough context needed for machine learning without exposing any sensitive information. This de-identification effort was manually reviewed to ensure no PII or PHI exposure and correct any resulting readability issues. Notes about pediatric patients were excluded. No intent was made to sample multiple notes from the same patient. No metadata is provided to group notes other than by note type, discipline, or discipline group. The dataset is not organized beyond the provided metadata, but publications about models trained on this dataset should include information on the train/test splits used.

All notes were sentence-segmented and tokenized using the spaCy en_core_web_lg model with additional rules for sentence segmentation customized to the dataset. Notes are stored in an XML format readable by the GATE annotation software (https://gate.ac.uk/family/developer.html), which stores annotations separately in annotation sets.

CAPTURE QUALITY

As the clinical notes were extracted directly from the EMR in text format, the capture quality was determined to be high. The clinical notes did not have to be converted from other data formats, which means this dataset is free from noise introduced by conversion processes such as optical character recognition.

LIMITATIONS

Because of the effort required to manually deidentify and annotate notes, this corpus is limited in terms of size and representation. The curation decisions skewed note selection towards specific disciplines and note types to increase the likelihood of encountering information on functioning. Some subtypes of functioning occur infrequently in the data, or not at all. The deidentification of notes was done in a manner to preserve natural language as it would occur in the notes, but some information is lost, e.g. on rare diseases.

METADATA

Information on the manual annotation process is provided in the annotation guidelines for each of the four domains:

- Communication & Cognition (https://zenodo.org/records/13910167)

- Mobility (https://zenodo.org/records/11074838)

- Self-Care & Domestic Life (SCDL) (https://zenodo.org/records/11210183)

- Interpersonal Interactions & Relationships (IPIR) (https://zenodo.org/records/13774684)

Inter-annotator agreement was established on development datasets described in the annotation guidelines prior to the annotation of this gold standard corpus.

The gold standard corpus consists of 484 documents, which include 35,147 sentences in total. The distribution of annotated information is provided in the table below.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Japan JP: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 39.700 % in 2008. Japan JP: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 39.700 % from Dec 2008 (Median) to 2008, with 1 observations. Japan JP: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Japan – Table JP.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

United Arab Emirates AE: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data was reported at 38.200 % in 2014. United Arab Emirates AE: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data is updated yearly, averaging 38.200 % from Dec 2014 (Median) to 2014, with 1 observations. United Arab Emirates AE: Income Share Held by Highest 20% data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United Arab Emirates – Table AE.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Percentage share of income or consumption is the share that accrues to subgroups of population indicated by deciles or quintiles. Percentage shares by quintile may not sum to 100 because of rounding.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

BackgroundThe prevalence of diabetes is increasing rapidly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), urgently requiring detailed evidence to guide the response of health systems to this epidemic. In an effort to understand at what step in the diabetes care continuum individuals are lost to care, and how this varies between countries and population groups, this study examined health system performance for diabetes among adults in 28 LMICs using a cascade of care approach.Methods and findingsWe pooled individual participant data from nationally representative surveys done between 2008 and 2016 in 28 LMICs. Diabetes was defined as fasting plasma glucose ≥ 7.0 mmol/l (126 mg/dl), random plasma glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/l (200 mg/dl), HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, or reporting to be taking medication for diabetes. Stages of the care cascade were as follows: tested, diagnosed, lifestyle advice and/or medication given (“treated”), and controlled (HbA1c < 8.0% or equivalent). We stratified cascades of care by country, geographic region, World Bank income group, and individual-level characteristics (age, sex, educational attainment, household wealth quintile, and body mass index [BMI]). We then used logistic regression models with country-level fixed effects to evaluate predictors of (1) testing, (2) treatment, and (3) control. The final sample included 847,413 adults in 28 LMICs (8 low income, 9 lower-middle income, 11 upper-middle income). Survey sample size ranged from 824 in Guyana to 750,451 in India. The prevalence of diabetes was 8.8% (95% CI: 8.2%–9.5%), and the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was 4.8% (95% CI: 4.5%–5.2%). Health system performance for management of diabetes showed large losses to care at the stage of being tested, and low rates of diabetes control. Total unmet need for diabetes care (defined as the sum of those not tested, tested but undiagnosed, diagnosed but untreated, and treated but with diabetes not controlled) was 77.0% (95% CI: 74.9%–78.9%). Performance along the care cascade was significantly better in upper-middle income countries, but across all World Bank income groups, only half of participants with diabetes who were tested achieved diabetes control. Greater age, educational attainment, and BMI were associated with higher odds of being tested, being treated, and achieving control. The limitations of this study included the use of a single glucose measurement to assess diabetes, differences in the approach to wealth measurement across surveys, and variation in the date of the surveys.ConclusionsThe study uncovered poor management of diabetes along the care cascade, indicating large unmet need for diabetes care across 28 LMICs. Performance across the care cascade varied by World Bank income group and individual-level characteristics, particularly age, educational attainment, and BMI. This policy-relevant analysis can inform country-specific interventions and offers a baseline by which future progress can be measured.

United States US: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $1.90 a Day: 2011 PPP: % of Population data was reported at 1.200 % in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 1.000 % for 2013. United States US: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $1.90 a Day: 2011 PPP: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 0.700 % from Dec 1979 (Median) to 2016, with 11 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.200 % in 2016 and a record low of 0.500 % in 1991. United States US: Poverty Headcount Ratio at $1.90 a Day: 2011 PPP: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $1.90 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. The aggregated numbers for low- and middle-income countries correspond to the totals of 6 regions in PovcalNet, which include low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia). See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

About

The Synthetic Sweden Mobility (SySMo) model provides a simplified yet statistically realistic microscopic representation of the real population of Sweden. The agents in this synthetic population contain socioeconomic attributes, household characteristics, and corresponding activity plans for an average weekday. This agent-based modelling approach derives the transportation demand from the agents’ planned activities using various transport modes (e.g., car, public transport, bike, and walking).

Methodology

This dataset contains statistically simulated 10.2 million agents representing the population of Sweden, their socio-economic characteristics and the activity plan for an average weekday. For preparing data for the MATSim simulation, we randomly divided all the agents into 10 batches. Each batch's agents are then simulated in MATSim using the multi-modal network combining road networks and public transit data in Sweden using the package pt2matsim (https://github.com/matsim-org/pt2matsim).

The agents' daily activity plans along with the road network serve as the primary inputs in the MATSim environment which ensures iterative replanning while aiming for a convergence on optimal activity plans for all the agents. Subsequently, the individual mobility trajectories of the agents from the MATSim simulation are retrieved.

The activity plans of the individual agents extracted from the MATSim simulation output data are then further processed. All agents with negative utility score and negative activity time corresponding to at least one activity are filtered out as the ‘infeasible’ agents. The dataset ‘Synthetic Agents’ contains all synthetic agents regardless of their ‘feasibility’ (0=excluded & 1=included in plans and trajectories). In the other datasets, only agents with feasible activity plans are included.

The simulation setup adheres to the MATSim 13.0 benchmark scenario, with slight adjustments. The strategy for replanning integrates BestScore (60%), TimeAllocationMutator (30%), and ReRoute (10%)— the percentages denote the proportion of agents utilizing these strategies. In each iteration of the simulation, the agents adopt these strategies to adjust their activity plans. The "BestScore" strategy retains the plan with the highest score from the previous iteration, selecting the most successful strategy an agent has employed up until that point. The "TimeAllocationMutator" modifies the end times of activities by introducing random shifts within a specified range, allowing for the exploration of different schedules. The "ReRoute" strategy enables agents to alter their current routes, potentially optimizing travel based on updated information or preferences. These strategies are detailed further in W. Axhausen et al. (2016) work, which provides comprehensive insights into their implementation and impact within the context of transport simulation modeling.

Data Description

(1) Synthetic Agents

This dataset contains all agents in Sweden and their socioeconomic characteristics.

The attribute ‘feasibility’ has two categories: feasible agents (73%), and infeasible agents (27%). Infeasible agents are agents with negative utility score and negative activity time corresponding to at least one activity.

File name: 1_syn_pop_all.parquet

kommun

marital 

sex 

age

HId

HHtype 

HHsize 

num_babies

feasibility

1 https://www.scb.se/vara-tjanster/oppna-data/oppna-geodata/deso--demografiska-statistikomraden/

(2) Activity Plans of the Agents

The dataset contains the car agents’ (agents that use cars on the simulated day) activity plans for a simulated average weekday.

File name: 2_plans_i.parquet, i = 0, 1, 2, ..., 8, 9. (10 files in total)

(3) Travel Trajectories of the Agents

This dataset contains the driving trajectories of all the agents on the road network, and the public transit vehicles used by these agents, including buses, ferries, trams etc. The files are produced by MATSim simulations and organised into 10 *.parquet’ files (representing different batches of simulation) corresponding to each plan file.

File name: 3_events_i.parquet, i = 0, 1, 2, ..., 8, 9. (10 files in total)

A dataset listing the richest zip codes in Missouri per the most current US Census data, including information on rank and average income.

Survey of Household Spending (SHS), average household spending, Canada, regions and provinces.

Soziale Ungleichheit. Themen: Soziale Herkunft, Verdienst, Diskriminierung, Korruption und gute Beziehungen als Voraussetzung für Erfolg in der Gesellschaft (wohlhabende Familie, gut ausgebildete Eltern, gute Ausbildung, Ehrgeiz, harte Arbeit, die richtigen Leute kennen, politische Verbindungen, Bestechungen, Rasse und Religion bzw. Geschlecht einer Person); Meinung zur Angleichung der Bildungschancen im Land (Korruption als Mittel für soziale Mobilität, nur Studenten aus den besten Schulen haben gute Chancen, eine Hochschulausbildung zu erhalten, nur Reiche können sich die Kosten für den Besuch einer Universität leisten, gleiche Chancen für alle für den Hochschulzugang, unabhängig von Geschlecht, ethnischer Zugehörigkeit oder sozialer Herkunft); Meinung zum eigenen Gehalt: ausreichendes Einkommen, Einschätzung des tatsächlichen und des angemessenen Einkommens für ausgewählte Berufsgruppen: Arzt, Vorsitzender eines großen nationalen Unternehmens, Verkäufer, Hilfsarbeiter in einer Fabrik, Minister in der nationalen Regierung; zu große Einkommensunterschiede im eigenen Land; Verantwortlichkeit der Regierung zur Verringerung von Einkommensunterschieden; Forderung nach staatlich garantiertem angemessenen Lebensstandard für Arbeitslose anstelle von Sozialleistungen für Arme; Forderung nach höheren Steuern für Menschen mit hohem Einkommen; Einstellung zu Steuern für Menschen mit hohem Einkommen; Rechtfertigung von besserer medizinischer Versorgung und Bildung für Menschen mit höherem Einkommen; Wahrnehmung von Klassenkonflikten zwischen sozialen Gruppen in dem Land (Arm und Reich, Arbeiterklasse und Mittelschicht, Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer, Menschen an der Spitze der Gesellschaft und Menschen am unteren Rand); Selbsteinschätzung der Herkunftsfamilie des Befragten auf einer Oben-Unten-Skala; Vergleich der persönlichen sozialen Lage mit der des Vaters (soziale Mobilität); Gehaltkriterien (Skala: Verantwortung, Bildung, benötigte Unterstützung für Familien und Kinder, Qualität der Arbeitsleistung oder harte Arbeit); Gefühl von gerechter Bezahlung; Charakterisierung des tatsächlichen und des gewünschten sozialen Systems des Landes, gemessen an der Einstufung auf einem Pyramidendiagramm (Bild der Gesellschaft). Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; Familienstand; Zusammenleben mit einem Partner; Jahre der Schulbildung; höchster Bildungsabschluss; länderspezifischer Bildungsgrad; derzeitiger Erwerbsstatus (Befragter und Partner); Wochenarbeitszeit, Beruf (ISCO 88) (Befragter und Partner); Vorgesetztenfunktion bei der Arbeit, Erwerbstätigkeit im privaten oder öffentliche Sektor oder Selbständigkeit (Befragte und Partner); Selbständige wurden gefragt: Zahl der Mitarbeiter; Mitgliedschaft in einer Gewerkschaft; Einkommen des Befragten (länderspezifisch); Familieneinkommen (länderspezifisch), Haushaltsgröße; Haushaltszusammensetzung, Parteipräferenz (links-rechts); länderspezifische Parteipräferenz; Wahlbeteiligung an der letzten Wahl; Konfession; religiöse Hauptgruppe; Kirchgangshäufigkeit; Selbsteinschätzung auf einer Oben-Unten-Skala; Region (länderspezifisch), Ortsgröße (länderspezifisch); Urbanisierungsgrad; Herkunftsland oder ethnische Gruppenzugehörigkeit; Erwerbsstatus und Beruf von Vater und Mutter während der Jugend des Befragten (ISCO 88); Anzahl der Bücher im Elternhaus während der Jugend der Befragten (kulturelle Ressourcen); berufliche Stellung im ersten und derzeitigen Job (ISCO 88 und Arbeitstyp); Selbsteinschätzung der sozialen Klasse; geschätzter Betrag des Familienvermögens (Geld und Vermögenswerte); Arbeitsorientierung: Selbst-Charakterisierung derzeit und in der Jugend der Befragten bezüglich seiner Leistung am Arbeitsplatz bzw. in der Schule. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: Art der Datenerhebung; Gewichtungsfaktor; case substitution. Social inequality. Themes: Importance of social background, merit, discrimination, corruption and good relations as prerequisites for success in society (wealthy family, well-educated parents, good education, ambitions, hard working, knowing the right people, political connections, giving bribes, person´s race and religion, gender); attitude towards equality of educational opportunity in one´s country (corruption as criteria for social mobility, only students from the best secondary schools have a good chance to obtain a university education, only rich people can afford the costs of attending university, same chances for everyone to enter university, regardless of gender, ethnicity or social background); opinion about own salary: actual occupational earning is adequate; estimation of actual and reasonable earnings for occupational groups: doctor, chairman of a large national corporation, shop assistant, unskilled worker in a factory, cabinet minister in the national government; income differences are too large in the respondent´s country; responsibility of government to reduce income differences; government should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed and spend less on benefits for poor people; demand for higher taxes for people with high incomes; opinion on taxes for people with high income; justification of better medical supply and better education for people with higher income; perception of class conflicts between social groups in the country (poor and rich people, working class and middle class, management and workers, people at the top of society and people at the bottom); self-assessment and assessment of the family the respondent grew up in on a top-bottom-scale; social position compared to father (social mobility); salary criteria (scale: responsibility, education, needed support for family and children, quality of job performance or hard work at the job); feeling of a just payment; characterisation of the actual and the desired social system of the country, measured by classification on pyramid diagrams (image of society). Demography: sex; age; marital status; steady life partner; years of schooling; highest education level; country specific education and degree; current employment status (respondent and partner); hours worked weekly; occupation (ISCO 1988) (respondent and partner); supervising function at work; working for private or public sector or self-employed (respondent and partner); if self-employed: number of employees; trade union membership; earnings of respondent (country specific); family income (country specific); size of household; household composition; party affiliation (left-right); country specific party affiliation; participation in last election; religious denomination; religious main groups; attendance of religious services; self-placement on a top-bottom scale; region (country specific); size of community (country specific); type of community: urban-rural area; country of origin or ethnic group affiliation; occupation status and profession of respondent´s father and mother during the youth of the respondent (ISCO 88); number of books in the parental home during the youth of the respondent (cultural resources); occupational status and profession in the first job and the current job (ISCO 88 and working type); self-assessment of the social class; estimated amount of family wealth (monetary value of assets); work orientation: self-characterisation at this time and in the youth of the respondent concerning his performance at work respectively at school. Additionally coded: administrative mode of data-collection; weighting factor; case substitution.

The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) is a continuous programme of cross-national collaboration running annual surveys on topics important for the social sciences. The programme started in 1984 with four founding members - Australia, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States – and has now grown to almost 50 member countries from all over the world. As the surveys are designed for replication, they can be used for both, cross-national and cross-time comparisons. Each ISSP module focuses on a specific topic, which is repeated in regular time intervals. Please, consult the documentation for details on how the national ISSP surveys are fielded. The present study focuses on questions about social inequality. Most important prerequisites for personal success in society (scale); attitude to the welfare state and social differences (scale); chances to increase personal standard of living; importance of differentiated payment; higher payment with acceptance of increased responsibility; higher payment as incentive for additional qualification of workers; avoidability of inequality of society; increased income expectation as motive for taking up studies; good profits for entrepreneurs as best prerequisite for increase in general standard of living; insufficient solidarity of the normal population as reason for the persistence of social inequalities; estimate of average annual income of selected occupational groups and information on a justified income for the members of these occupational groups from the point of view of the respondent; judgement on the income differences in the country; reduction of income differences, employment guarantee, guaranteed minimum income and equal opportunities for children of poorer families in university admission as government task; attitude to a reduction of government tasks for those of low income; approval of government support for unemployed; judgement on total taxation for recipients of high, middle and low income; perceived social conflicts in the country; self-classification on a top-bottom scale; social mobility; social origins; education status, responsibility accepted, span of control, family responsibility, good work performance or hard work as most important criteria for establishing work pay; income increase or income reduction of individual income in case of a hypothetical equalization of the total income of the population; personal self-employment and occupation at start of employment; description of current condition of social pyramid as well as assessment of the situation 30 years ago as well as in 30 years; self-classification on a social prestige scale as well as classification of selected occupations; hours worked each week; employment in private or public sector; span of control; company size; personal union membership and membership of spouse; religiousness; self-classification of social class affiliation; party preference; party inclination; residential status; self-classification on a left-right scale; regional origins. Das International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) ist ein länderübergreifendes, fortlaufendes Umfrageprogramm, das jährlich Erhebungen zu Themen durchführt, die für die Sozialwissenschaften wichtig sind. Das Programm begann 1984 mit vier Gründungsmitgliedern - Australien, Deutschland, Großbritannien und den Vereinigten Staaten - und ist inzwischen auf fast 50 Mitgliedsländer aus aller Welt angewachsen. Da die Umfragen auf Replikationen ausgelegt sind, können die Daten sowohl für länder- als auch für zeitübergreifende Vergleiche genutzt werden. Jedes ISSP-Modul konzentriert sich auf ein bestimmtes Thema, das in regelmäßigen Zeitabständen wiederholt wird. Details zur Durchführung der nationalen ISSP-Umfragen entnehmen Sie bitte der Dokumentation. Die vorliegende Studie konzentriert sich auf Fragen zu sozialer Ungleichheit. Wichtigste Voraussetzungen für persönlichen Erfolg der Gesellschaft (Skala); Einstellung zum Sozialstaat und zu sozialen Unterschieden (Skala); Chancen zur Erhöhung des eigenen Lebensstandards; Wichtigkeit differenzierter Bezahlung; höhere Bezahlung bei Übernahme erhöhter Verantwortung; Mehrbezahlung als Anreiz für zusätzliche Qualifikation von Arbeitern; Vermeidbarkeit von Ungleichheit der Gesellschaft; erhöhte Einkommenserwartung als Motiv für die Aufnahme eines Studiums; gute Gewinne der Unternehmer als beste Voraussetzung für die Erhöhung des allgemeinen Lebensstandards; mangelnder Zusammenhalt der normalen Bevölkerung als Grund für die Persistenz sozialer Ungleichheiten; Schätzung des durchschnittlichen Jahreseinkommens ausgewählter Berufsgruppen und Angabe eines aus Sicht des Befragten gerechtfertigten Einkommens für die Mitglieder dieser Berufsgruppen; Beurteilung der Einkommensdifferenzen im Lande; Reduktion von Einkommensunterschieden, Beschäftigungsgarantie, garantiertes Mindesteinkommen und Chancengleichheit für Kinder ärmerer Familien beim Universitätszugang als Staatsaufgabe; Einstellung zu einer Reduktion der staatlichen Aufgaben für Einkommensschwache; Befürwortung staatlicher Unterstützung für Arbeitslose; Beurteilung der Gesamtbesteuerung für Bezieher hoher, mittlerer und niedriger Einkommen; perzipierte soziale Konflikte im Lande; Selbsteinstufung auf einer Oben-Unten- Skala; soziale Mobilität; soziale Herkunft; Ausbildungsstand, übernommene Verantwortung, Kontrollspanne, Familienverantwortung, gute Arbeitsleistung oder harte Arbeit als wichtigste Kriterien für die Festlegung eines Beschäftigungsentgeltes; Einkommenserhöhung oder Einkommensreduktion des individuellen Einkommens im Falle einer angenommenen Egalisierung der Gesamteinkommen der Bevölkerung; eigene Selbständigkeit und Beruf bei Beschäftigungseinstieg; Beschreibung des derzeitigen Zustands der gesellschaftlichen Pyramide sowie Einschätzung der Situation vor 30 Jahren sowie in 30 Jahren; Selbsteinstufung auf einer gesellschaftlichen Prestigeskala sowie Einstufung ausgewählter Berufe; Wochenarbeitsstunden; Beschäftigung im privaten oder öffentlichen Sektor; Kontrollspanne; Betriebsgröße; eigene Gewerkschaftsmitgliedschaft und Mitgliedschaft des Ehepartners; Religiosität; Selbsteinstufung der sozialen Klassenzugehörigkeit; Parteipräferenz; Parteineigung; Wohnstatus; Selbsteinstufung auf einer Links-Rechts-Skala; regionale Herkunft.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Winchester, VA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 14,125, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 215,015. This indicates that the top earners earn 15 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 344,621, which is 160.28% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2439.79% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Winchester median household income. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Vacaville, CA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 28,923, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 291,330. This indicates that the top earners earn 10 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 460,923, which is 158.21% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1593.62% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Vacaville median household income. You can refer the same here